wrote (March 8, 2008):
For myself, I don't know how should I take this experience as a Bach listener and the humblest performer...I wonder if this topic feels like offensive to the list?

A couple of years ago, when I was shopping, I happened to notice that Bach's most beautiful solemnly sounding alto aria "Erbarme Dich" in St. Matthews' Passion BWV 244 the obligato solo violin melody interwoven into, of all things, least solemnly sounding Japanese popular song of lost love, not even a secular cantata addressed toward decent audience. At first I doubted my own ear but as I have heard the song couple of times I couldn't help being confirmed.

Impossible combination indeed....I wonder what J.S. Bach would think of should he ever found his most beautiful masterpiece interwoven into such a remote jenre intended for audience he could have least thought of? I don't think Bach would ever approve such a combination.

Having said that, I must also admit that to the listeners who doesn't know the area, it would sound just "natural"... I am very perplexed.

Nessie Russell

wrote (March 8, 2008):
Terejia wrote:< Impossible combination indeed....I wonder what J.S. Bach would think of should he ever found his most beautiful masterpiece interwoven into such a remote jenre intended for audience he could have least thought of? I don't think Bach would ever approve such a combination. >Well, I don't know what Bach thought about things, but it seems to me that he would not mind at all. He himself used material from one source and put it into other compositions. Remember that all of his music was not for religious purposes. The man had a life outside of the church. Could be he would be pleased that his masterpiece was still alive and giving people pleasure.

Yoël L. Arbeitman

wrote (March 10, 2008):
Terejia wrote:< For myself, I don't know how should I take this experience as a Bach listener and the humblest performer...I wonder if this topic feels like offensive to the list? > I cannot fathom why this interesting bit of information would not be of interest to the list.

< A couple of years ago, when I was shopping, I happened to notice that Bach's most beautiful solemnly sounding alto aria "Erbarme Dich" in St. Matthews' Passion BWV 244 the obligato solo violin melody interwoven into, of all things, least solemnly sounding Japanese popular song of lost love, not even a secular cantata addressed toward decent audience. At first I doubted my own ear but as I have heard the song couple of times I couldn't help being confirmed. > Of course any commercial music seeking a great melody will find it easier to simply rob the music rather than to create it. And lost love is not irrelevant. The alto sings of the suffering of Peter The Denier. Let us compare the tenor aria that serves this function in the main forms of the Johannes-Passion (BWV 245), an aria I barely ever remember and of course in Versio II of the J-P Bach substituted another aria which the Neumann notes suggest may have been taken from an earlier Weimar passion (or not).

These days on TV all kinds of opera arias are used in the background of many commercials and, as you, yourself say, most persons will not even be aware of the source or the story attached to that aria which is being so used.

< Impossible combination indeed....I wonder what J.S. Bach would think of should he ever found his most beautiful masterpiece interwoven into such a remote jenre intended for audience he could have least thought of? I don't think Bach would ever approve such a combination. >We, all of us alive today are the audience that Bach never could have thought of. And "Erbarme dich" sung by female altos or counter-tenors again would have caused Bach to be startled and surprised. And, as Kim sagaciously said the other day, indoor plumbing and toilet paper would come as a shock to Bach.

< Having said that, I must also admit that to the listeners who doesn't know the area, it would sound just "natural"... I am very perplexed. > Precisely and indeed, once again females singing his Church music and/or counter-tenors would cause Bach to be perplexed. Basically anyone can do that which he likes with music of the antiquity of Bach's and I myself of course would not want to hear this song but I do not control the world.

Thanks you for your interesting remarks,

Jean Laaninen

wrote (March 10, 2008):
[To Yoël L. Arbeitman] Everything that comes up for discussion here, asYoël says, is of interest to someone in the group. I remember when I was playing Bach keyboard ten years ago or so, and my grandchildren wanted to know how I knew the music from a Disney movie (can't remember the title). So Bach is spread about and used many ways, but for the most part I prefer it in the concert hall or the church or on CD in a traditional fashion and not used in so many modern ways.

Peter Moncure

wrote (March 10, 2008):
Jean Laaninen carefully echoed:<for the most part I prefer it in the concert hall or the church or on CD in a traditional fashion and not used in so many modern ways.>My preference also, but not the question raised, which was Terejia's:<I wonder what J.S. Bach would think should he find his most beautiful masterpiece interwoven into such a remote genre intended for audiences he could not have thought of? I don't think Bach would ever approve such a combination.> (slightly edited)
And here I disagree, for the usual reasons. But I am so ignorant of the practices of Bach's time, especially given the huge body of new musicological understanding within the last few decades, that I ask the 802+ members of the list: would he have turned "A Whiter Shade of Pale"? (sorry about the pun) Wasn't it then complimentary to have one's melody or musical gesture repeated by another? I have written fugues, dodecaphonic. electronic and aleatoric music, and I cannot imagine Bach uninterested in such sound expression, nor opposed to the free use of
his ideas in it. A rhetorical hypothesis, perhaps, unless it illuminates through list members how it might have felt in his time, so I'm asking.

And while I'm at it, I imagine the Master freely allowing his music in any sacred or profane context from sufism to jingles. The depth of religious apprehension available in much of Bach's work certainly transcends Christianity--the intricate patterns of sacred Arabic architecture come to mind. Why would one not want, whether the imagined Bach or present-day Terejia, a popular connection to what is undoubtedly one of the greatest treasures of humanity? (Terejia, I don't mean to be critical of you, I have enjoyed your posts).

Jean Laaninen

wrote (March 10, 2008):
[To Peter Moncure] As Bach took many of his musical ideas from the folk idiom of the day, as well as from tunes I've heard tell were sung in taverns, he would probably have handled the matter with grace. Yes, wide-spread sharing of musical ideas in his time would not have been considered plagiarism as we think of matter of taking the work of another and incorporating it for our own purposes many times today. The age of Bach's material permits free use from PD copyright-free scores.

And we know that Bach's efforts were many times experimental for his time so perhaps he would have enjoyed the efforts of others to create on top of his creativity. Who can really say, though, about a specific piece--too bad he isn't here today to tell us.

But I do think in Bach's time, before Bach's time and after his time there have been many instances when composers were flattered by a developed piece on a given theme of theirs.

The process of creativity many times cannot be denied, and I do not think from my reading at this point that there is any written evidence of Bach being distressed by one of his works being used by someone--but perhaps another member of this group (a musicologist/historian) could comment.

And is it too bold to suggthat within each of a composer's works there is something of the life force encompassing the whole expansion of human existence that it comes as a matter of course that derivative works and applications of a piece should be found in the transforming nature of music? Maybe that will remove the careful echo a bit and allow for expansion of this topic.

Thanks for re-directing our thoughts.

Terejia

wrote (March 10, 2008):
[Top Anne, Yo, Jean and Peter] Thank you for graciously taking time for responding my thread. I appreciated and enjoyed all of your statement of facts and subjunctive modes.

After all, if I may repeat my former message, we in 21Century cannot help more or less subjunctive modes when it comes to performance of J.S.Bach who lived in a quite different environment than that of ours. Even "authentic" approach might be a rather relative concept rather than absolute concept but I am not musicologist nor historian.

Personally what I am mostly interested in is aethetic. Then I sometimes enjoy what might well sound "anti-aethetics(?too radical term?)" to refined and sensitive listeners of this list-like technically immature boy-soprano singing arias imperfectly or Karl Richter's using of coarse tutti where refined ears would prefer rarified solo, etc, for no reasons. There are times when I prefer refined emsemble like Rifkin, recent Rilling, Kuijken, too, which would be pro-aethetics.

After all, I would say, Bach is as he is, which would constitute no answer.

Lastly to Anne, I wish you all the best for your Handbell. I only once experienced having that beautiful instrument in my hand.

Bruce Simonson

wrote (March 10, 2008):
[To Terejia] After reading this post from Terejia, I have to admit that the idea of morphing "Erbarme Dich" into a pop tune, and eventually into what from Terejia's description seems to be musack, is (a) astonishing, and in (b) very poor taste.

I understand the arguments that Bach used the music of his time, but I believe there should be limits, really, to the types of "borrowing" and "free channeling" of works of art, particularly if they are infused with meaning for other audiences. I also don't think Bach would have been amused or intrigued by turning his music into background noise or vehicles for pop artists to improve their markets.

The SMP was compiled by Bach for spiritual reasons, and perhaps more importantly, to me (and many others), has come to have real significance in a spiritual context.

I am taking a heavy hand here, on purpose, because I don't believe in commercialization of high art and "disrespecting" anything that has meaning; the arguments for it are, in my opinion, pretty weak (e.g., it gives great art and this music a wider audience?).

A couple of decades ago, there was a pop duet which lifted the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 8th Piano Sonata (Pathetique), gave it a back-beat and set it to words. Ouch, is all I could think.

For another example, I am similarly uninterested by some of Mappelthorpe's works, when they intended to shock and offend, in the name of art.

I also found the movie Borat in poor taste ... sure, there are lots of folks out there with bizarre beliefs, but they are real people, and a starting point for dialogue with anyone who is invested in their beliefs, is to take them seriously and honor them as people.

I also cringe when I hear traditional Christmas carols sung in "country-western" styles during the lead-up to December 25.

I know this sounds like I'm a conservative pedant, but really, I don't think of myself that way. I like to think of myself as very tolerant, but now that Terejia's post got me going, I realize that one area where I prefer to hold the line, is commercializing great works of art.

Jean Laaninen

wrote (March 10, 2008):
[To Bruce Simonson] Thanks, Bruce.

As I stated earlier, my preference is to leave Bach's classical works in the classical vein. And of course I have not heard this piece in the context in which Terejia did, and probably would not like it at all.

I'm traditional on that score, but in a general manner, I am tolerant of the re-use of a variety of works, and admit that even in the case of Bach the Swingle Singers recording so long ago captured my fancy, but only briefly...and then I was back practicing at the organ for church services, or taking the flute out to add something to a choir number. I wasn't trying to flippant about Bach, but this leads to...having said that, the question I'd raise next is, do we know of anyone in Bach's time who used his work in some way to his approval or without his approval?

Bradley Lehman

wrote (March 10, 2008):< do we know of anyone in Bach's time who used his work in some way to his approval or without his approval? >
Marcello made an effective transcription/elaboration of the fugue from Bach's E minor toccata, BWV 914. Here's a recording, track 1: Amazon.com

And Bach himself transcribed lots of other people's music. Most famously (today) he arranged more than a dozen of Vivaldi's concertos for other instrumentation, either solo or ensemble.

The Chico Bach Festival (Chico, California) is performing Bach's arrangement of Pergolesi's "Stabat Mater" either tonight or tomorrow evening. Bach changed the text entirely, transposed the music down a step, changed the language to German, added a viola part, and more. It's the Psalm 51, BWV 1083. Pergolesi was already dead at the time, but Bach wouldn't necessarily have sought his approval anyway...nor expected other composers to come to him for approval to arrange his own work out.

One, or arguably two, of Bach's fugue subjects in the WTC are drawn directly from Fischer's "Ariadne musica", keeping the same key and everything. (Definitely the E major from WTC 2, and probably also the F major of WTC 1 where the resemblance is awfully close.) Fischer was still alive at the time; so?

wrote (March 11, 2008):< do we know of anyone in Bach's time who used his work in some way to his approval or without his approval? >
I believe the motet "Der Gerechte kommt um", in its current from, is now attributed to J. S. Bach, but the original is by his predecessor, Kuhnau.

wrote (March 11, 2008):
[To Jean Laaninen] While we have many examples of Bach's adaptations of other composers' music, Bach's sons, Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Philipp Emanuel, adapted their father's vocal music that they inherited in manuscript. Most notable is WF's parody in Latin of Mvts. 1 & 5 of Dad's BWV 80, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," for his cantata "Gaudete omnes populi" in Halle after 1750 (Oxford Composer Companions: JSB, p.150). CPE used a few of Dad's SMP turbae in his annual Passion presentations in Hamburg and presented his adaptation of the BWV 232 Credo in 1786.

Jean Laaninen

wrote (March 11, 2008):
[To William Hoffman] Thanks, William, for adding these examples to this thread.

Stephen Benson

wrote (April 13, 2008):
Peter Moncure wrote:< And while I'm at it, I imagine the Master freely allowing his music in any sacred or profane context from sufism to jingles. >This is quite a belated response to Peter's comment, but having just encountered a reference to one of the more bizarre cantata manifestations, I thought it worth sharing. A recent New Yorker article about contemporary composer Nico Muhly utilized as iorganizational focus the London January premiere of a violin concerto.
The closing two paragraphs:

"By the time Muhly reached the reception that was being held in a basement concert room, he was already thinking about his next project, a collaboration with a singer from the Faroe Islands named Teitur Lassen, to be performed by the Holland Baroque Society in three Dutch cities in March. Lassen had come to London to hear the concerto, and he and Muhly huddled in a corner laying plans for their new piece, which was to consist of music composed to accompany a series of YouTube videos that had been chosen expressly for their mundanity.

'There's a way to search for interesting things on YouTube, and then there's a way to search for uninteresting things,' Muhly said. 'You put in search terms like "My daughter's yard," "My friend's restaurant."' The music was to be modelled [sic] on cantatas by Bach and anthems by Purcell, he explained. It was going to be great." Anybody catch any of those performances?

Score of M-Passion

J.F. Laurson

wrote (September 1, 2008):
In a step to be more library-independent, I am thinking of getting a (large) score of BWV244... alas: which one, if quality of text and presentation should both be top?

Do any of you have preferences, recommendations, pros and cons to offer on what's out there?

What are the options, anyway?

B&H, Peters, Dover (which is just one of the B&H public domain versions) et al??

Many thanks,

Jean Laaninen

wrote (September 1, 2008):
[To J. Laurson] The large scores that I own are Kalmus, and these scores are also used by the orchestra and chamber orchestra at ASU...as I learned from the conductor. I think you'd do fine with a Kalmus score.

Martin Lutz

[Schiersteiner Kantorei, Propsteikantor Süd-Nassau, Wiesbaden] wrote (September 1, 2008):
The best is Bärenreiter (Neue Bach-Ausgabe)!
I used it for many performances - perfect in musicological reasons, very good printing.Bärenreiter has very good orchestral materrial too. Neue Bach-Ausgabe should be the standard at all.

Jens F. Laurson

wrote (September 2, 2008):
Thanks for the prelim. feedback. Even though it's nearly twice as expensive as the Breitkopf & Haertel, I'm tending toward the Baerenreiter NBA, also. I'm glad to hear the Kalmus is good for the M-Passion -- I had almost given up on it after some bad experiences with Wagner scores that were no better than, say, Dover.

Has anyone had the NBA M-Passion and the B&H versions in their hands? Apart from the print and accuracy, I'm also a sucker for the haptic element when holding and reading it.

Thanks,

Concertgebouw Matthäus-Passion Matter

Yoël L. Arbeitman

wrote (April 2, 2009):
I assume (but have no way of knowing) that this information has already been discussed on the other Bach list. I copy and paste it from another list with one bracketed paragraphical question of my own.
=========
Starting in 1899 the Concertgebouworkest performed every year a Bach-Passion on Palm Sunday at the Amsterdam Concertgebouw (except for 1945, the last year of World War II).

[Since already in 1895 Mengelberg was the conductor of the Concertgebouw orchestra, I am wondering whether he was doing this passion from the beginning; YLA]

Maybe incredible, but the 2008 concert has been the last one of this valuable Dutch tradition!

Oh yes, there are multiple Bach-Passions all over the country, but not by the Concertgebouworkest.

After 110 years the management decided to break through a historical practice.

Instead of Bach they planned the Dutch premiere of a St. John-Passion for solo baritone, chorus and orchestra from 2007 by James MacMillan.
=========
End forwarded message

"Kommt ihr Töchter" - WTC - BACH

Tom Dent

wrote (April 6, 2009):
Has anyone remarked on the similarity between the notes of Fugue no.14 in the WTC, and the opening chorus of the Matthäuspassion?

And if we transpose both of them to G minor we would get

GABAHCHAH... (WTC)

GABAHCHAG... (chorus)

which has something familiar in the middle of it!

And the countersubject of the WTC fugue uses just the same figuration as the orchestral parts of 'O Mensch bewein'.. although one could well say, this is a much more common figure in Baroque music anyway.

Douglas Cowling

wrote (April 6, 2009):
Tom Dent wrote:< Has anyone remarked on the similarity between the notes of Fugue no.14 in the WTC, and the opening chorus of the Matthäuspassion? >The general melodic shape has a similarity, except that, in the WTC, Bach plays with harmonic modalities, shifting from minor in the 1st bar to major in the 2nd and then back to minor in the 3rd. I'm still convinced that the inspiration for the opening of the SMP is the "Et misericordia" in the 1728-31 revsion of the Magnificat which Bach made at the time that he was working on the 1729 SMP. There are so many similarities -- E minor, the swaying 12/8 rhythm, the sustained pedal-points, the doubling of strings and flutes in their lowest register -- that it is hard not to think of the Magnificat movement as a test-run for the Passion.

Tomorrow evening I'm off to hear Tafelmusik's OVPP performance of the SMP on period instruments led by Jeanne Lamon, the artistic director, from the concert-master's desk. Should be a beautiful and provocative performance.

William Hoffman

wrote (April 6, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:< I'm still convinced that the inspiration for the opening of the SMP is the "Et misericordia" in the 1728-31 revsion of the Magnificat which Bach made at the time that he was working on the 1729 SMP. There are so many similarities -- E minor, the swaying 12/8 rhythm, the sustained pedal-points, the doubling of strings and flutes in their lowest register -- that it is hard not to think of the Magnificat movement as a test-run for the Passion. > William Hoffman replies: While working on SMP discussion starting this week, I looked in depth from various sources, especially Eric Chafe, re. textual and musical sources. The opening chorus really sets the tone, so to speak, for the whole work. It is virtually unique as a Passion opening dictum chorus in that it embraces a second chorus of commentary and a chorale line. It is possible that the work evolved from 1725 to 1729, beginning with the textual and allegorical influences of Brockes and Picander. There is the idea that it may have started as a single chorus, possibly without the commentary, and with the swallow's nest organ initially playing the chorale "O Lamm Gottes unschuldig " for the 1727 performance.

An early influence on the three-voice approach may be in the opening chorale chorus of Cantata BWV 127/1, "Herr Jesu Christ, wahr' Mensch und Gott," for Quinquageisma estomihi Sunday, 11 February 11 1725. Here the chorus sings the main Eber chorale, supported by "Christe du Lamm Gottes" in the orchestra, and "Herzlich tut mich verlangen" in the bass and basso-continuo. There's no mistaking the Passion emphasis in this penultimate work in Bach's chorale cantata cycle.

What is particularly intriguing is that the parody Köthen Funeral Music, BWV 244a, presented three weeks before the 1729 SMP performance on April 15, does not begin with "Kommt ihr Töchter," but rather with the opening chorus of the Funeral Ode, BWV 198 (later opening the St. Mark Passion). Interestingly, BWV 244a closes with a parody of its counterpart, "Wir setzen uns mit Traenen nieder."

We can only speculate why that great pastorale-dance chorus was omitted. A clue could be that Picander's parody text involves no chorales for the Prince Leopold service. At any rate, the opening theme is so striking, especially the rising scale in the bass at the sixth measure, setting the stage for the entrance of the commentary chorus and the chorale melody.

Douglas Cowling

wrote (April 6, 2009):
William Hoffman wrote:< What is particularly intriguing is that the parody Koethen Funeral Music, BWV 244a, presented three weeks before the 1729 SMP performance on April 15, does not begin with "Kommt ihr Toechter," but rather with the opening chorus of the Funeral Ode, BWV 198 (later opening the St. Mark Passion). >Was Bach saving this chorus for the premiere of the Passion? I've always been intrigued by Bach's audience's collective musical memory. Did they remember Bach's earlier version when he presented a parody work? Certainly the musicians and the cogoscenti would. Would there have been any air of disapproval either for lack of originality or on a question religious decorum? Or did the aesthetic of affections and the assumptions about common intellectual property inform its reception?

We have to be very careful about projecting our own aesthetic backwards. At the recent Obama inauguration, the moment that Yo Yo Ma's chamber group began the second part of John William's "Air and Simple Gifts", I dismissed the whole work out of hand as a crass steal from Copland's "Appalachian Spring" I wonder if I would have been a sniffy burger at the first performance of the SMP.

Marcel Gautreau

wrote (April 7, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:>Did they remember Bach's earlier version when he presented a parody work? ... Would there have been any air of disapproval either for lack of originality or on a question religious decorum? Or did the aesthetic of affections and the assumptions about common intellectual property inform its reception?<I'm intrigued you say that - it's one of the (many) things I find fascinating about studying Bach's music in general, and the cantatas in particular. Certainly some of his listeners would recognize old music in new clothes. On the other hand, music being the part of everyday life that it was, perhaps the feeling of familiarity was also commonplace.

We heard a performance of Ernest MacMillan's String Quartet Op. 1 last week by Quatuor Alcan. From the first bars I had the same feeling - I've heard this before. Or have I? Couldn't possibly say where - CBC radio maybe? Unlikely, given my listening habits.

And enjoy the SMP performance - I only wish I could join you.

Neil Halliday

wrote (April 7, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:>Tomorrow evening I'm off to hear Tafelmusik's OVPP performance of the SMP on period instruments<
Re the OVPP argument, I am intrigued by the markings in the score of "So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen": S and A in 'Coro I' are marked 'Solo' (T and B are silent), while SATB in 'Coro 2' are not so designated; further, as the music morphs into "Sind Blitzer, sind Donner", S and A in Coro I are changed to 'Tutti'; there are no markings over the now re-introduced TB parts in Coro I. SATB in Coro 2 remains as before; all of which suggests a minimum of 16 vocalists (2VPP).

Douglas Cowling

wrote (April 7, 2009):
Neil Halliday wrote:< Re the OVPP argument, I am intrigued by the markings in the score of "So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen": S and A in 'Coro I' are marked 'Solo' (T and B are silent), while SATB in 'Coro 2' are not so designated; further, as the music morphs into "Sind Blitzer, sind Donner", S and A in Coro I are changed to 'Tutti'; there are no markings over the now re-introduced TB parts in Coro I. SATB in Coro 2 remains as before; all of which suggests a minimum of 16 vocalists (2VPP). >I've learned to distrust the solo and tutti markings in my faithful Eulenburg pocket score. Is there an online list of the part books for the SMP which lists the movements according to the manuscripts? Otherwise, we're spinning our wheels on these questions. Or is the material already posted here on the cantatas site?

I'm taking my score this evening to make notes of the disposition of the 10 vocal soloists.

Neil Halliday

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:>I've learned to distrust the solo and tutti markings in my faithful Eulenburg pocket score.<Eulenburg and Dover are simply following the BGA in these details; do we distrust the BGA?

Bradley Lehman

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:< We have to be very careful about projecting our own aesthetic backwards. At the recent Obama inauguration, the moment that Yo Yo Ma's chamber group began the second part of John William's "Air and Simple Gifts", I dismissed the whole work out of hand as a crass steal from Copland's "Appalachian Spring" >Totally, but the performance was a masterful bit of finger/bow/breath synching with their recording (the previous day), plus the piece will surely help to sell the commemorative CD that you know is on the way (if not already out). The performance was also a masterful piece of inter-racial and inter-faith Public Relations, for the occasion.

Ed Myskowski

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:< We have to be very careful about projecting our own aesthetic backwards. At the recent Obama inauguration, the moment that Yo Yo Ma's chamber group began the second part of John William's "Air and Simple Gifts", I dismissed the whole work out of hand as a crass steal from Copland's "Appalachian Spring" >Bradley Lehman replied< Totally, but the performance was a masterful bit of finger/bow/breath synching with their recording (the previous day), plus the piece will surely help to sell the commemorative CD that you know is on the way (if not already out). The performance was also a masterful piece of inter-racial and inter-faith Public Relations, for the occasion. >For Yo Yo Ma's personal take on the same noble objectives, check out his Silk Road Project.

As to Williams crass steal, is he not simply using material from the public domain (Simple Gifts, indeed!) that Copland also used? Strikes me as analogous to Bach reusing a Chorale which might have been used previously by Schutz or Buxtehude, and many others. In that case, Bach was advancing the quality of the art of music, and I suspect that Williams was not, but that speaks to the skill and inspiration of the composers in question, not to the integrity of the process.

Douglas Cowling

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Neil Halliday wrote:< Eulenburg and Dover are simply following the BGA in these details; do we distrust the BGA? >I don't have access unless I trek into the university library/

Uri Golomb

wrote (April 8, 2009):
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:55 AM, bachloverau <destiny8@bigpond.com> wrote:
Douglas Cowling wrote:<< I've learned to distrust the solo and tutti markings in my faithful Eulenburg pocket score. >>Neil Halliday wrote:< Eulenburg and Dover are simply following the BGA in these details; do we distrust the BGA? >I suppose, in this particular case, I would distrust the BGA. AFAIK, Bach's own materials include no solo/tutti indication anywhere at all in the SMP (I haven't examined the parts for myself; I'm relying here on secondary literature). There are parts for each of the four members of Choir I (one part for each member), parts for each of the four members of Choir II (again, one part each), extra parts for the singers who did the 'bit' parts (e.g., Pilatus, the two Priests, etc.), with tacet indications to ensure that they don't take part in the choruses; and that's it. Neither these parts nor the score include any solo/tutti indications.

BGA was probably extrapolating from the 19th-century axiom that, if all four choral voices take part, that means that the entire choir joins in. In "Sind blitzen", all four members of Choir II sing in the first part; and in the second part, all four members of Choir I and all four members of Choir II are singing. Hence the tutti indication: the BGA editors simply assumed that full choral texture equalled full choral forces. Thye probably thought that they were spelling out what Bach had implied; but they were working from a set of 19th-century assumptions -- not 18th-century assumptions.

Later today or tomorrow, I'll have access to the introduction to the BGA edition, and I'll check whether they actually say anything about this.

Neil Halliday

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Uri Golomb wrote:>In "Sind blitzen", all four members of Choir II sing in the first part; and in the second part, all four members of Choir I and all four members of Choir II are singing. Hence the tutti indication:<This statement needs clarification. I take it you mean "So ist mein Jesus" as the "first part" of "Siblitzen" (with the SA 'solo' parts).

In "Sind blitzen" itself, only the S and A parts of Coro I have the tutti markings over them, not the T and B parts. Why not?

Uri Golomb

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Uri Golomb wrote:>In "Sind blitzen", all four members of Choir II sing in the first part; and in the second part, all four members of Choir I and all four members of Choir II are singing. Hence the tutti indication:<Neil Halliday wrote:< This statement needs clarification. >I'm sorry for the confusion I caused. I meant to say: the first and second parts of "So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen". "So ist mein Jesus" features two singers from Choir I + all four members of choir II; "Sind Blitzen" -- the second part of "So ist mein Jesus" -- features the full vocal complement of both choirs.

My point was that, in "Sind blitzen", Bach indeed switches from duo-against-choir to choir-against-choir, but this switch is not accompanied by any solo/tutti indications. In terms of vocal forces, he was only switching from 6 singers to 8 singers. "Sind blitzen" does have a much fuller sonority than "So ist mein Jesus", however, since Bach greatly augments the orchestral palette at the start of "Sind blitzen". I think -- though I'll have to check the score -- that he does produce a choral sonority through much of "Sind blitzen" by having the two choirs singing in unisono -- not throughout, but much of the time; and when they sing together, the result is a two-per-part sound, like a convnetional choir of concertists and ripienists.

I hope that's clear now.

Neil Halliday

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Neil Halliday wrote:>In "Sind blitzen" itself, only the S and A parts of Coro I have the tutti markings over them, not the T and B parts. Why not?<In other words, if you only have 4 singers in Coro I, why write 'solo' over the S and A parts in the first section, where in this case Coro I soprano and alto would be part of a duet, not a solo. Similar reasoning for the second section - the 'tutti' over S and A (but not T and B) would be superfluous.

Neil Halliday

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Uri Golomb wrote:>in "Sind blitzen", Bach indeed switches from duo-against-choir to choir-against-choir, but this switch is not accompanied by any solo/tutti indications< This is an important point. The BGA does have 'tutti' markings over the S and A parts in the switch to "Sind blitzen". Is the BGA wrong?

(I notice we are writing simultaneously. Sorry if you have already covered this point.)

John Pike

wrote (April 8, 2009):
[To Uri Golomb] There is no substitute for looking at original scores. Harnoncourt's 3rd recording includes the complete original score (1736 version) on disc 3, viewable with Quick Time. The pages move on automatically as the music plays. I am working until 11.30 tonight and will not have time to check myself but maybe someone else could have a look at the original material and tell us whether these solo and tutti marking are original or not. it seems to be a crucial point.

Tom Dent

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Douglas Cowling wrote:<< Has anyone remarked on the similarity between the notes of Fugue no.14 in the WTC, and the opening chorus of the Matthäuspassion? >>
< The general melodic shape has a similarity, except that, in the WTC, Bach plays with harmonic modalities, shifting from minor in the 1st bar to major in the 2nd and then back to minor in the 3rd. > It's not only 'general melodic shape': the intervals are exactly the same up to the 8th note of each subject. However, the metric accentuation and note-lengths are so different that the identity (whether intentional or not) is hard to recognize.

The alternation of major and minor thirds over the same root is obviously also in the SMP opening, although differently executed.

The general movement and atmosphere of 'Et misericordia' are indeed much closer to 'Kommt', but they don't have any hint of a purposeful fugal buildup. A case of synthesis...

Concerning BWV198, the opening choral harmonies of 'Lass, Fuerstin' are said to have been reworked into the first Kyrie of the B minor mass - certainly the bass progression and harmonies above it are practically identical. (The 2nd flute part of the later work spells HBACH in its first two bars!)

wrote (April 8, 2009):
I'm now back home, and did some checking. My own score (Editio Musica Budapest, 1988, edited by Istvan Mariassy and based on the Neue-Bach Ausgabe) does not include the solo/tutti indications at this point. I also have a PDF of the BGA; as far as I could tell (my German is a bit rusty), the introduction doesn't say anything about the source of the solo/tutti indications.

I've also checked in a couple of Early Music articles - John Butt's "Bach's Vocal Scoring" (Early Music February 1998, p. 102, which includes a partial facsimile of the relevant page from the score) and a response from Joshua Rifkin (Early Music May 1998, p. 381). Apparently, there is something resembling a tutti indication in the score for the tenors and basses at the start of "Sind blitzen". The basses are marked "Basso 1 Chori/ Basso 2 Chori [con]cord" - that is, here the bass of chorus 1 sings together with the bass of chorus 2; and tenor is marked "due Tenori" - again, meaning that the tenor of chorus 1 sings together with the tenor of chorus 2. This is probably an instruction for the copyist - telling him that, although there is only one line here, he should copy it into two separate parts (for choir 1 and choir 2). The continuo line is marked "tutti le bassi" - meaning that this line should be copied into all continuo parts.

Unfortunately, their discussion does not extend into what happens in the soprano and alto parts; but even if these parts include a "due alti"/ "due soprani" indication or something like that, this would still be merely an indication that the two choirs sing in unison here; in itself, it tells us nothing about how many singers each choir contained. Either way, the two choirs indeed sing in unison at this point, thus creating a choral effect even if only 8 singers are used.

Tom Dent

wrote (April 8, 2009):Sind Blitze - violence in SMP

What is all this apocalyptic 'fire and brimstone' doing in the middle of the Passion? What religious or devotional function does this bloodthirsty text fulfil? Who are the chorus representing at this point? (In 'So ist / Lasst ihn' the Chorus 1 soloists are labeled, in the old Peters edition, 'Zion' and Chorus 2 'Die Glauebigen'...)

Could it be desirable for Christians to call on Hell to open up and violently punish misdeeds?
What (so far as we can tell) was Picander's - or Bach's - attitude to such violence?

Uri Golomb

wrote (April 8, 2009):
Tom Dent asked about the purpose of the "apocalyptic 'fire and brimstone' [.]in the middle of the Passion".

Here's my take on this, in my article on the SMP (some of the ideas I present here were influenced by a lecture given by John Butt a few years earlier):

Outbursts of anger in non-narrative portions of the St. Matthew Passion are rare but powerful. The most terrifying is "So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen" ("So is my Jesus captured now", no. 27). This opens as a quiet duet - the soprano and alto of Choir I lamenting Jesus's arrest - interrupted by cries of "Release him! Do not bind him!" from Choir II. At first, sorrow and anger are pitted against each other, but then anger overwhelms all other emotions: the two choirs join together, demanding that thunders, lightening and Hell's abyss "wreck, ruin, engulf, shatter" the perpetrators in an ill-conceived wish to save Jesus (ill-conceived because salvation depends upon the Crucifixion). In their vengeful fury, the believers ironically resemble Christ's persecutors: their music is at least as terrifying as that of the most violent turba choruses.

In the next narrative scene (no. 28), Christ himself rejects this vehement reaction. He stops his own disciples when they attempt to defend him by force ("all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"), and states thahe could have called upon divine protection, "But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?" This scene leads to the chorale-fantasia "O Mensch bewein dein Sünde groß" ("O Man, bewail your great sin", no. 29) which concludes Part One: the believers who have just condemned Christ's erstwhile persecutors now acknowledge their own guilt.

Uri Golomb wrote:< Unfortunately, their discussion does not extend into what happens in the soprano and alto parts; but even if these parts include a "due alti"/ "due soprani" indication or something like that, this would still be merely an indication that the two choirs sing in unison here; in itself, it tells us nothing about how many singers each choir contained. Either way, the two choirs indeed sing in unison at this point, thus creating a choral effect even if only 8 singers are used. >I had all these questions in mind last night when I attended a stunning performance of the SMP by the Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra under Jeanne Lamon with the vocal soloists of Les Voix Baroques. It was billed as HIP on period instruments and OVPP.

The two orchestras were placed left and right respectively with the two portative organs side by side in the middle with the continuo instruments clustered on either side. The viola da gamba was shared by the two orchestras and was included in the tuttis with Coro 2. There was a little continuo variation with solo bassoon in "Sehet Jesus hat die Hand" and the bass being used in the more dramatic secco recitatives. The strings were 3-2-2-1-1 in each orchestra. Beautiful, well-focussed sound

There were nine soloists with an additional three soprano ripienists in the balcony singing "Kömmt Ihr Töchter" and "O Mensch Bewein". A second bass in Coro 2 sang the various bit roles and all the chorales and crowd choruses but not the Coro 2 sections in "Ich will bei meinenm Jesu" and "Sehet Jesu". The only deviation was assigning the Evangelist (a superb Charles Daniels) to Coro 2. The programme notes mentioned this specifically as a measure to protect the tenor who had six performances of the work this week!
Thankfully he switched to Coro 1 for the concluding "Gute Nacht" recitative.

The nine soloists stood in a semicircle with the evangelist in the centre. Right from the start this was a SMP such as I had never encountered. All of the usual soloists -- Christ, the Evangelist, Judas -- were singing the first chorus. It was clear that the Romantic differentiation of soloists waiting for their moment and a large chorus was turned on its head. Here was a group of singers singing together and the differentiation would be provided by Bach by genre, style and scoring.

I was curious to see if the work lost its "monumentality" with such a small group. Far from it. The loss of weight was more than compensated by the incisive sound of clear, focussed voices who could really move when required. The runs of "Sind Blitzen und Donner", which is usually a heaving mass of choral sound, were electric. I was struck by the way Bach's different methods of orchestral doubling enhanced the "tutti" illusions. I've always wondered why in the chorales Bach didn't put the instruments at the octave to provide a four-foot sound. By keeping the instruments in the lower register, there really is an illusion of a larger choir singing. In the "crowd" choruses, Bach does play with transpositions, sometimes doubling at pitch and sometimes at the octave. I'm interested to look at these shifts more systematically now to see how Bach may be creating textural crescendos.

The real revelation of the evening was participation of the "role" voices in the chorales and crowd choruses. It was initially a shock to see the Coro 1 bass sing the question in the chorus, "Wo willst du," and then answer it as Christ in the following recitative. Part of this was a visual thing, and I had to keep telling myself that Bach's congregation wouldn't have been able to see what I was seeing. However, there were many moments, particularly with the Christus, when the continuous vocal participation of the soloists created a new hermeneutic. Two in particular struck me. Having the Christus sing "Komm Süsses Kreuz" set up a powerful resonance. So too the astonishing moment when the Christus sang of the burial in "Am Abend." It was as if I was hearing the SMP for the first time.

The performance was conducted by Jeanne Lamon as concertmaster of Coro 1, the position from which W.F. Bach said his father conducted. Lamon was given a high riser so she could be seen, which would have been unnecessary in Bach's loft where the visual factor of being seen by the audience was not in play. Because the performing forces were so small and professional, there was no need for a Bernstein-like conductor. In practical terms, she formed a triangle of oversight with the concertmaster of the second orchestra and the evangelist standing beside continuo group. There was a lovely moment when the Lamon led the first orchestra in "Erbarme Dich", followed almost immediately by the second orchestra in "Gebt mir meinen Jesus wieder" led by the second concertmaster, Julia Wedman. Duelling divas!

In short, a fine performance which opened up a host of new questions. And I thought I knew the work. Bach knew better!

Uri Golomb

wrote (April 10, 2009):
[To Douglas Cowling] Thank you, Douglas, for a vivid description of what seems to have been a stunning performance. I very much enjoyed Paul McCreesh's live rendition of the SMP at St John's Smith Square in London - see: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/SMP-Golomb.htm - but I suspect I would have enjoyed this even more, judging both from your description and from my familiarity with Le Voix Baroques' recordings. For one thing, having an ensemble of singers used to working together probably makes for a more cohesive one-per-part performance than gathering together a group of soloists.

Do you know if they have plans to record the work?

The point about the resonance of having Christus sing the last two bass arias is discussed in John Butt's "Bach's vocal scoring" article (Early Music February 1998, pp. 99-108). It's an article that's well worth seeking out in the context of this discussion - at least until his book on the Passions is finally published.

Douglas Cowling

wrote (April 10, 2009):
Uri Golomb wrote:< Do you know if they have plans to record the work? >Nothing was said in the programme: I'll nose around.

Thanks for headsup about the Butt article. The question of "character" soloists also singing the arias, choruses and chorales made me think about the SJP as well. Instead of four soloists sitting there like lumps, each waiting for their two arias, we would have actively engaged and familiar voices.

This is a RADICAL change in my perception and appreciation of these works.

Tom Dent

wrote (April 11, 2009):
[To Douglas Cowling] Which doesn't mean it necessarily has anything to do with Bach's practice or intentions - despite all Doug's rhetorical nudges to that effect ('like lumps', indeed!). The question of whether soloists sing along with the choruses is really quite independent of the size of chorus.

If Lamon's performance resembles Bach's actual practice in whatever respect, then perhaps one can learn something about Bach from it. But that is only a supposition or assumption, that (to be specific) the most extreme modern opinion on the number of singers historically used is actually correct.

As for the scoring of 'Sind Blitze' ... well if Bach had a relatively very small number of singers, and if he wanted to create the impression of a larger number, and if he thought a good way of doing this was by certain types of scoring, then perhaps there is a point there to be made, but that is a huge number of guesses to pile on top of each other.

Basically Doug is trying to use the Lamon performance as a means to read the mind of someone over years in the grave. Fun, but unlikely to be particularly reliable.

Uri Golomb

wrote (April 12, 2009):
Tom Dent wrote:\"The question of whether soloists sing along with the choruses is really quite independent of the size of chorus."
True. But there's quite a general consensus that, in Bach's time, the soloists definitely sang along with the choruses. The debate is on whether they sang the choruses on their own, or were joined by other singers, who fell silent during the arias, duets etc.

In fact, the terms in this quotation are misleading. Bach did not think in terms of "soloists" and "choristers"; he thought - and spoke, and wrote, and read - in terms of "concertists" and "ripienists". Concertists sang both solos and choruses. Without them, there was no choir. Ripienists were optional. Sometimes there weren't any; sometimes they sang for the entire length of choral movements (e.g., Bach's SJP); sometimes they sang only in selected phrases within it (e.g., the Leipzig version of Cantata BWV 21).

The soloist in the modern sense - who sings the solos, but falls silent during the choral numbers - was not part of Bach's vocabulary or practice. Concertists did not "sing along" with the choir - they were the choir, and remained so whether ripienists joined them or not. This much is agreed upon by virtually all those who examined the original performing parts and other relevant materials. The debate is on how extensively Bach used ripienists, and on whether he wanted to use them more frequently than he actually did.

So there is no doubt that the singer who sang "Christus" in Bach's performances of the SMP also sang the bass line of the first choir. The original parts tell us as much: the part labelled Christus begins with the Bass I line of "Kommt ihr Töchter"; the Evangelist part begins with the Tenor I part of "Kommt ihr Töchter"; etc. etc. The structure of Bach's performing parts suggests that, in this particular work, the concertists were on their own: there were no ripienists. But even if ripienists had been there, that would not have reduced the concertists' workload. They would still have had to sing all the choral numbers as well as their respective solos.

As for the Tafelsmusik performance: of course, no present-day performance can be used as evidence for Bach's practices, one way or another. Performances might be based on evidence, but they do not in themselves constitute evidence. That said, if a performance reconstructs Bach's practices (as recovered from other sources), it can teach us something about the significance of these practices.

Uri Golomb

wrote (April 12, 2009):performances and evidence

Adding to my previous message: I would certainly be weary of saying that, because a performance "works" - for me and for other listeners - that means anything, in itself, about what the composer had in mind.

Two opposite illustrations of this. Recently, I've been re-acquainting myself with Karl Richter's video version of the SMP, directed by Hugo Käch. The performance preserved on that DVD - and the elaborate, cinematic vision that Käch clothed it in - is certainly a far cry from what Bach had in mind. Listening to it, and viewing it, were a somewhat weird experience for me. The performance felt wrong on several levels - not just historically, but in terms of what I believe the music to be about. Yet it was still thrilling and moving. Sometimes these things remind me of impressionist paintings of Gothic cathedrals, or Piccaso's re-creation of Velasquez (two examples which are, of course, very different from each other). They certainly weren't faithful to the art-works they were responding to - but they created something which is still quite valuable and moving, and does contain substantial elements of the original vision. However, the fact that I'm moved by it does not prove, in itself, that Richter grasped Bach's vision; and the fact that other listeners might detest this performance - and find few or no redeeming features in it - does not prove that Richter misunderstood Bach's vision. It should be noted that Richter himself was not aiming for a historical performance.

The other example comes from a performance which does have historicist aspiration: Jos van Veldhoven's rendition of the Johannes Passion. In several key moments in the opening chorus and in the penultimate chorus, "Ruht wohl", Veldhoven omits the ripienists, assigning these sections to the concertists alone (in modern terms, using soloists only, without choral support). The results are, to my mind, highly persuasive and breathtakingly beautiful. They are also in accordance with general concertino/ripieno practices in Bach's lifetime. They are not, however, consistent with Bach's instructions for this particular work. In other works, Bach indeed used ripienists selectively; but in the SJP, he used ripienists throughout, in all choral movements.

So Veldhoven, in this case, apparently went against Bach's explicit prescription. I don't claim to have all the evidence: maybe Bach's prescription to use ripienists throughout applies only to some of his performances of the work, rather than all of them (this is mere speculation on my part). The point is, Veldhoven says nothing. If he were to say, directly, "I did it this way because I find it persuasive", I for one would have no objections. But if you're purporting to reconstruct Bach's intentions, and seem to be flying in the face of his direct instructions, some explanation is obviously expected.

One thing is certain: the fact that I'm moved by the performance, and find Veldhoven's practice musically persuasive, proves nothing, one way or another, about the relationship between what Veldhoven did and what Bach did (and/or wanted).